G.R. Nos.

L-91011-12 November 24, 1994

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
EDUARDO MACAM y LONTOC, EUGENIO CAWILAN, JR. y BELEN, ANTONIO CEDRO y SANTOS,
ERNESTO ROQUE y MARIANO AND DANILO ROQUE y MARIANO, accused. DANILO ROQUE and
ERNESTO ROQUE, accused-appellants.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE: This is an appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City in, finding Danilo Roque and Ernesto Roque guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with
Homicide and sentencing each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
FACTS: On August 18, 1987, aboard a tricycle, Eduardo Macam, Antonio Cedro, Eugenio Cawilan, Jr.,
Danilo Roque and Ernesto Roque went to the house of Benito Macam located at 43 Fema Road, Quezon City.
Upon arrival, Eduardo Macam who is a nephew of Benito Macam talked to the latter. After which, Eduardo
was invited to eat lunch at Benitos house. The former then told the latter that he has company waiting outside.
Benito then ordered his maid to let Eduardos company in and likewise invited them for lunch. The group ate
their lunch except for Ernesto Roque who refused the invitation and preferred to wait outside in his tricycle.
After eating, Eduardo suddenly grabbed the clutch bag that Benito was holding and pulled out the gun therein
and announced a hold up. The group started ransacking the house and searched for valuables. Benito and his
household were tied up. His wife Leticia was killed and the rest of them were stabbed by Eduardos group. The
value of the items taken amounted to P P536,700.00.
Upon police investigation, Ernesto and Danilo Roque denied participation of the crime. They were then
brought to Quezon City Gen. Hospital where Benito Macam and 2 of his household members were confined
and treated for the injuries they sustained during the robbery. They were made to pinpoint their perpetrators as
Ernesto and Danilo were made to line up together with several policemen in civilian clothes.
The RTC of Quezon City convicted the five accused of the crime of Robbery with Homcide and sentenced
each of them to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. It is with this decision that Ernesto and Danilo are
appealing from. One of their contention is that their uncounseled identification by the prosecution witnesses
during the police line-up at the hospital are violative of their constitutional rights under Section 12, Article 3 of
the Constitution
ISSUE: Whether or not the police lineup was in the absence of their counsel was violtive of their
constitutional rights under Sec. 12, Art.3 of the Constitution.
RULING: WHEREFORE, the decision is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATIONS as to the amount of award
for civil damages.
RATIONALE: After the start of the custodial investigation, any identification of an uncounseled accused
made in a police line-up is inadmissible. This is particularly true in the case at bench where the police officers
first talked to the victims before the confrontation was held. The circumstances were such as to impart
improper suggestions on the minds of the victims that may lead to a mistaken identification. Appellants were
handcuffed and had contusions on their faces. However, in this case, the prosecution did not present evidence
regarding appellant's identification at the police line-up. Hence, the exclusionary sanctions against the

admission in evidence of custodial identification of an uncounseled accused cannot be applied. On the other
hand, appellants did not object to the in-court identification made by the prosecution witnesses. The
prosecution witnesses, who made the identification of appellants at the police line-up at the hospital, again
identified appellants in open court. Appellants did not object to the in-court identification as being tainted by
the illegal line-up. In the absence of such objection, the prosecution need not show that said identifications
were of independent origin (Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 18 L Ed 2d 1178, 87 S Ct 1951 [1967]).